USDA Approves ‘Untested, Inherently Risky’ GMO Apple

[Scuba]

https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/usda-approves-%E2%80%98untested-inherently-risky%E2%80%99-gmo-apple

On Friday, February 13, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the first genetically engineered apple, despite hundreds of thousands of petitions asking the USDA to reject it. According an article in Politico, the USDA said the GMO apple “doesn’t pose any harm to other plants or pests.” Great. But what about potential harm to the humans who consume them?

The Arctic Apple (Golden Delicious and Granny varieties), developed by Canada-based Okanagan Specialty Fruit, shockingly doesn’t require approval by the U.S. Food & Drug Association (FDA). The FDA will merely conduct a “voluntary review” before, presumably, rubber-stamping the apple for use in restaurants, institutions (including schools and hospitals) and grocery stores—with no meaningful long- (or even short-) term safety testing for its potential impact on human health.

Here’s why that should concern every consumer out there, especially parents of young children. In April 2013, we interviewed scientists about the genetic engineering technology used to create the Arctic Apple, whose only claim to fame is that it doesn’t turn brown when sliced. The benefit to consumers? Being able to eat apples without having any sense of how old they are?

Given that the dsRNA from our food, and presumably the Frankenapple, will enter the bloodstream and cells of consumers, safety research should be done BEFORE this GMO apple is put on the grocery shelf to prove that the dsRNA that enters consumers' bodies will not harm them. To date, no such research has been reported, so the Frankenapple is flying in the dark.

On the contrary, recent research has shown that dsRNAs can transfer from plants to humans and other animals through food. The biotech industry has always claimed that genetically engineered DNA or RNA is destroyed by human digestion, eliminating the danger of these mutant organisms damaging human genes or human health. But many biotech scientists say otherwise. They point to evidence that the dsRNA present in food survive digestion in the stomach and intestines and actually enter the bloodstream and tissues of the body, where it can influence the functioning of the eater's cells.

[Dont call me Shirley]

1. This is bad.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

2. FUD.

http://www.biofortified.org/2013/08/why-novel-dsrna-molecules-in-gm-food-are-of-little-to-no-concern/

[Scuba]

3. Less fear, uncertainty and doubt would result from thorough FDA testing, don't you think?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

4. You mean the 20 acre test they did in 2012?

Or the current testing that the FDA is doing?

http://www.popsci.com/you-could-be-able-buy-gmo-apple-2017

[Scuba]

5. So you agree the FDA has not concluded testing. Got it.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

6. Of course not.

The USDA approved it based on the 2012 study. The FDA has to study it for safety. It won't make it to market until the FDA gives it the A-OK.

[Scuba]

7. So the USDA approved it before the FDA approved it for safety. But no FUD allowed.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

8. The USDA approved it based on agricultural studies.

The FDA is the one who has to approve it to be fit for human consumption. The article you posted is full of FUD and highly misleading. You do realize that Arctic Apples have been developed over the past few years. The company developing them, Okanagan Specialty Fruits, has done numerous tests through the year, which is what the USDA bases their assessments on.

The USDA does not regulate food safety. That is the FDA's job.

[jeff47]

9. So much bullshit in one place.

On the contrary, recent research has shown that dsRNAs can transfer from plants to humans and other animals through food.

On the contrary, this claim is not backed up by the press release it cites. The press release is here:
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/crucial36.html

What the press release says is that there are no regulations that require testing the safety of dsRNA. There are no claims that dsRNA can actually cause harm. In fact:

According to Adjunct Associate Professor Judy Carman of Flinders University and a co-author of the paper: "The dsRNA molecules in GM plants may work exactly as intended and have no other effects. On the other hand, they may have effects that were not predicted, both on their target organisms and other organisms such as people and wildlife. We won't know until we do thorough assessments, and these assessments have not yet been done."

Yet this article claims that dsRNA is "inherently risky", as if these assessments have been done.

"You know, we determined that the 1998 Honda Accord could not exceed the speed of light, but we have not tested the 2015 Honda Accord. Since we have not unified the electroweak force, strong force and gravitation, it could go faster than the speed of light. We need to do extensive study to prove that the vehicle safely remains below the speed of light."

Why don't we say that? Because there is no known mechanism by which the 2015 Honda Accord could exceed the speed of light. Why don't we have extensive studies on dsRNA safety? Because there is no known mechanism by which the dsRNA in question could cause harm.

This is how woo enters the mainstream. A paper leads to a press release that then gets misquoted in another article, and suddenly a GM apple is the deadliest thing known to man.

[dilby]

10. Yep, lets throw science out the window and go with fear.

And people wonder why there are anti-vaxxers out there when they are generating bullshit fear of the food supply.

[HuckleB]

11. Bad Marketing By Pro-Organic Marketing Outfit.

If this apple is untested and inherently risky, then every organic food derived from seeds created using mutation breeding is VERY untested and EXTREMELY inherently risky.

This is anti-science propaganda. Nothing more.